2015 (10) TMI 1096 - HC - Customs

Appeal for reducing the Penalty Appeal being time barred to 55 days Appellant submits that delay for not filing the appeal within time has been satisfactorily explained Revenue did not file written objection and Court may examine the genuineness of explanation given by the appellant for filing the appeal beyond time. Held That - Tribunal has taken an appropriate view of the matter to reduce the quantum and impose the penalty under Sections 114 (i), 114 AA of Customs Act, 1962 and finds that quantum of penalty imposed is pure question of fact and does not raise any substantial question of law Appeal dismissed in favour of the Respondents.

Summary

Issues: Appeal under section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 against Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2014, Time-barred appeal, Condonation of delay, Reduction of penalty imposed under sections 114(i) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962, Tribunal's consideration of various factors in reducing penalty, Correct identification of respondent No. 2, Quantum of penalty as a question of fact.

The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2014 in Customs Appeals No. 60023 and 60024 of 2013 CU(DB). The appeal was reported to be time-barred by 55 days. The respondent's advocate did not file a written objection, allowing the court to examine the genuineness of the appellant's explanation for the delay. The appellant's counsel satisfactorily explained the delay, leading to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being allowed, and the delay was condoned.

The Tribunal's order had reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents under sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal considered factors such as the quantum of sugar exported, profitability from import of raw sugar, and other aspects to justify the reduction of penalty from Rs. 1 Crore to Rs. 10 Lakhs for respondents No. 1 and 2. The penalty for respondent No. 2 was further reduced to Rs. 50,000, as the Tribunal found the initial amount highly excessive. There was a discrepancy in the respondent's name in the Tribunal's order, corrected to identify the respondent as Mukul Sharma, the General Manager of the respondent No. 1 company.

The High Court, upon review, found that the quantum of penalty imposed by the Tribunal was a question of fact and did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Court, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the penalty reduction. The judgment highlights the importance of factual considerations in penalty imposition and the limited scope for judicial interference in such matters.